How to Write a Best Seller?

John Hoopes @KUHoopes on Twitter: " A book that needs writing"....

credit: John Hoopes

I love this. John left it there, quite a stunning piece of AI image creation in its own way. I decided to see what would happen if I asked popular AI chatbot ChatGPT (based on Large Language Models (LLMs) developed by OpenAI) about this and I thought the answer was pretty revealing*:

"If you treat that tweet as a kind of genre prompt, you can actually make a fairly grounded prediction—because pseudoarchaeology is remarkably conservative in how it updates itself. It rarely invents new structures; it recombines a stable set of tropes in response to shifting audience tastes.

What’s changed recently (roughly post-2015) [Fingerprints of the Gods PMB] is less the content than the framing.

1. From “ancient astronauts” → “lost advanced civilization”

The classic model associated with Erich von Däniken or Zecharia Sitchin—aliens directly building pyramids—hasn’t disappeared, but it’s no longer the most respectable version of the genre. Instead, a book like the hypothetical “Bullshit of the Gods” would probably pivot to something closer to Graham Hancock’s model:
- A lost Ice Age super-civilization (often Atlantis-adjacent)
- Destroyed by a catastrophe (e.g. Younger Dryas impact)
- Survivors spread knowledge worldwide
- Myths of “gods” are distorted memories of these survivors.
This shift matters because it sounds less ridiculous than aliens while still preserving the same explanatory function.

2. “The gods were real—but misunderstood”

Given the title, a central thesis would likely be:

 - Ancient gods were not supernatural beings but misunderstood advanced humans (or possibly non-human intelligences).

Variants might include:
- “Gods = elite survivors of lost civilization”
- “Gods = altered humans / forgotten technology users”
Residual alien hints (soft, not central)

This preserves the older “aliens = gods” structure, but dilutes it into something more ambiguous and defensible.

3. Anti-academic populism as a core narrative

Modern pseudoarchaeology is as much about who to distrust as what to believe.
Expect recurring claims like:
- Archaeologists are “gatekeepers” hiding the truth
- Academia suppresses evidence out of arrogance or ideology
- “Independent researchers” are the real truth-seekers.

This anti-elite framing is now central to the genre’s appeal and helps explain its spread on social media.

4. Diffusionism rebooted (but rebranded)

A key structural feature would be updated hyper-diffusionism:
- Similar monuments worldwide = evidence of a single source
- Cultural parallels = proof of global transmission
- Independent invention is summarily dismissed as implausible.

This is a core pseudoarchaeological pattern. The “twist” today is that the source is no longer aliens, but:
- Atlantis,
- Ice Age civilization,
- A forgotten global network.

5. Strategic use of ambiguity and “just asking questions”

Unlike older, more dogmatic texts, the tone would probably be less “[I believe/ can show PMB] this is true”, more: “why won’t they explain this?”.

Typical rhetorical moves:
- Cherry-picked anomalies (megaliths, maps, myths),
- Scientific-sounding language without method,
- Suggestive questions instead of falsifiable claims.

These are well-documented features of pseudoarchaeological argumentation.

6. Moral subtext: reclaiming wonder (against “soulless science”)

A contemporary addition is a quasi-spiritual or civilizational message:
- Modern society has “forgotten its origins”,
- Ancient knowledge was superior or more holistic,
- Science is reductionist; myth preserves truth.
This aligns the book with broader “alternative knowledge” ecosystems (New Age, conspiracy culture, etc.).

7. [...]

8. Tone: ironic, provocative, but market-savvy

The fake author name (“von Dancock”) is telling—because modern pseudoarchaeology often leans into edginess / irreverence, uses humour or mockery of experts, positions itself as rebellious, outsider knowledge. That’s very much in line with how the genre survives in meme culture while still selling books.

Bottom line: Such a book would not be a simple rehash of "ancient astronauts". Instead, it would: replace aliens with a lost advanced human (or quasi-human) civilization, frame myths as distorted history, attack academic authority, use suggestive, evidence-light argumentation and embed everything in a populist “they’re hiding the truth” narrative.

In other words: structurally identical to older pseudoarchaeology—but rhetorically updated for a post-“Ancient Aliens” audience. If you want, I can go one step further and actually write a convincing back-cover blurb or sample passage in that style—it’s surprisingly formulaic once you see the pattern. "

Meanwhile, while I think the above is a nice encapsulation of the main characteristics of the genre, I am less enthusiastic about the AI-suggested chapter structure, and I think it has missed one important element of Hancockism, the books are written as a travelogue, framing Hancock (and always the beloved wifey) as intrepid explorers - and so in effect taking the reader too on an ersatz "exploration", which is part of the appeal. Anyway here's what Chat GPT initially offered:

7. Likely chapter structure (very predictable)
You could almost sketch the table of contents:
“The Problem with History” (attack on academia),
- “Forbidden Evidence” (Göbekli Tepe, pyramids, etc.),
- “Myths That Tell the Truth” (global flood, culture heroes),
- “The Lost Civilization” (core thesis),
- “Survivors and Teachers” (diffusion narrative),
- “What They Don’t Want You to Know” (conspiracy framing),
- “Rewriting Human History” (grand conclusion)."

Incredibly boring. Interestingly revealing of how, in fact, cleverly are constructed Hancock's own staging of the argument. 

                              * * *                                 

Also I wondered what one could do with John's original title, while there IS (still!) a popular TV series about the ancient astronuats theme [more through inertia than actually keeping up with the cutting-edge of modern pseudoarchaeogy], I felt this was not something that would sell books in the current climate. I also am a bit dubious about the word "bullshit" on the cover of a commercial book. So, I fed ChaptGPT its own chapter divination and asked for a better title.** The LLM came up with 18 titles, some of which had no relation to the material that it said would be n the book, all of them were rubbish. Here is prompt #3 explaining why: "Sorry, but these are all very pedestrian, descriptive rather than literary. These sound like they will be step-by-step academic presentations (which you suggested above the readers of such stuff are NOT looking for). What could you suggest that would attract eyes on a bookstall at the station or an airport?". The AI-thingy had another go, prefacing it with some remarks

"those earlier titles do sit too close to the respectable nonfiction shelf. Airport-bookstall pseudoarchaeology tends to work more like thriller branding: short, evocative, slightly ominous, and suggestive rather than explanatory. It should feel like a secret you’re about to step into, not a lecture you’re about to attend. Given your chapter arc (hidden past → myth as memory → lost civilization → suppression → revelation), here are titles that lean into that tone:..."

The resultant list was only marginally more tempting. I'm including it below for reference:

"High-impact, commercial, “pick-it-up” titles ( Before the Fall, The First Age, Echoes Before History, The World We Forgot, Ashes of the First World) ["they work because they imply a story already in motion—something lost, not something to be explained"];

Slightly darker / conspiratorial edge (They Buried the First World, The Age They Erased, What Lies Beneath History, The Silence Before Civilization, A History That Was Taken) ["These connect directly to the “What They Don’t Want You to Know” chapter without spelling it out"];

Mythic + evocative, very on-trend right now (When the Gods Were Mortal, The Last Days of the First World, The Memory of Fire, The Children of the Flood, After the Deluge) ["These titles resonate strongly with the “myths are distorted history” angle—especially flood narratives"];

Sharp, minimal, almost thriller-like (FIRST WORLD, ERASED, BEFORE US, THE FIRST MEMORY, ORIGINS: LOST) ["These are extremely marketable—bold typography, immediate intrigue, zero exposition"].

The one it suggested as "one that really fits your structure" was useless too.



* Prompt#1: "If this were a real proposition for a book [...], going on current trends in pseudoarchaeology (so "ancient astronauts" are not so prominent as they were, but this title seems to refer to it in some way) ... can you make a reasonable prediction of what its populist-pseudoarchaeological contents would be?"

** Prompt#2: "I'd like to ask you to FORGET the original title [that IMO refers too strongly to the old "ancient astronauts" theories]. Let's take the chapter organization you proposed and independently of the original title and maybe playing down that 'ancient visitors from outer space' element, think up a new and snappier (commercially attractive) title:. Here are your chapter outlines: " ..."

Bigging up Hancock's Göbekli

Luke Caverns and History with Kayleigh (Kayleigh During): "There’s a Big Problem with Göbekli Tepe's "Simple" Hunter-Gatherers", they begin with Caverns intoning the mantra that is the basis of the hyperbole of the whole rediscovering-the-wheel video:

So, I have a problem with the way that people view and talk about the people of Gobecley and the Taş [he pronounces it "tars"] Tepeler world. They weren't simple hunter gatherers like is (sic) often said and actually in my opinion whether or not they hunted or gathered is honestly irrelevant and should have nothing to do with the value or the weight that we place on that culture or their incredible achievements.

Yet they cite absolutely no reference to a source of the statement that "people" (that's like the "people-say" of one of Donald Trump's retarded "sir-stories") view and talk dismissively about the people of Göbekli as "simple hunter gatherers". He goes on dramatically

"the people who built Göbekli and the greater Taş Tepeler world leaped out of the primordial world that had existed since the dawn of mankind. Simply the idea of erecting megalithic stone monuments and building structures with walls and roofs, these are literally some of the foundations of civilization. The very conception of these ideas would ultimately separate humanity from the animal food chain".

          Decorated hunter-gatherer megaxylons (Alaska c. 1910)         

Who'd have thought keeping out of the rain and putting a hunk of wood or stone on one end were such a leap eh?

What is disturbing is that these two clearly have not been anywhere near a library, or even looked up online the vast amount of literature on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and related Natufian where discussions of these themes have been pretty much staple since the sites concerned were first discovered (and Natufian we're talking about Dorothy Garrod's work of the end of the 1920s and later discussions). I include a(n old) map of PPN sites with botanical sampling in the Middle East to ask the question, just how thoroughly these two content creators have familiarised themselves with the archaeological literature on each of them before pontificating on camera about [map from Michael Wallace et al.  2019, ‘Re-analysis of archaeobotanical remains from pre- and early agricultural sites provides no evidence for a narrowing of the wild plant food spectrum during the origins of agriculture in southwest Asia’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 28. 10.1007/s00334-018-0702-y.] . Let's just list those sites, because YouTubers like these need to be called-out on producing superficial statements as some form of "knowledge" on their part.

IT'S MORE THAN JUST "GOBEKJLI TEPE" !!!

Fig. 1  Map of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in southwest Asiawith archaeobotanical remains included in the database. Black symbols indicate sites for which sample-level data was available; white symbols indicate sites for which sample-level data was unavailable. Central Anatolian sites — 1: Hacılar, 2: Erbaba, 3: Çatalhöyük East, 4: Can Hasan III and 5: Aşikli Höyük. Cypriot sites—6: Mylouthkia, 7: Ais Yiorkis and 8: Kastros. Southern Levantine sites—9: Hayonim Cave, 10: Yiftahel, 11: Nahal Oren, 12: Kebara Cave, 13: Atlit Yam, 14: Gilgal, 15: Netiv Hagdud, 16: Jericho, 17: Nahal Hemar, 18: Wadi Faynan 16, 19: Shkarat Msaied, 20: Beidha, 21: Ayn Abu Nukhayla, 22: Tell Ramad, 23: Gesher Benot Yaaqov, 24: Ohalo II, 25: Gesher, 26: Wadi al-Hammeh 27, 27: Iraq ed-Dubb, 28: Ain Ghazal, 29: Wadi el-Jilat 13, 30: Wadi el-Jilat 6 & 7, 31: Zahrat adh Dhra 2, 32: el-Hemmeh, 33: Wadi Fidan A, 34: Wadi Fidan C, 35: Basta I, 36: Tell Ghoraifé, 37: Tell Aswad, 38: Dhuweilla and 39: Azraq 31. Northern Levantine sites—40: Tell Ain el-Kerkh, 41: Tell Ras Shamra, 42: Tell Qaramel, 43: Tell Abr, 44: Dj’ade, 45: Halula, 46: Jerf el Ahmar, 47: Mureybet, 48: Abu Hureyra, 49: Douara Cave, 50: Cafer Höyük, 51: Gritille, 52: Nevali Çori, 53: Göbekli Tepe, 54: Tell Sabi Abyad II, 55: El Kowm I & II, 56: Çayönü and 57: Tell Bouqras. Sites of the eastern Fertile Crescent—58: Hallan Çemi, 59: Demirkoy, 60: Kortik Tepe, 61: Tell Maghzaliyeh, 62: Qermez Dere, 63: Yarym Tepe, 64: Nemrik 9, 65: Mlefaat, 66: Jarmo, 67: Chogha Golan, 68: Sheikh-e Abad, 69: Chia Sabz, 70: Tepe Ali Kosh, 71: Ganj Dareh Tepe, 72: Tepe Abdul Hosein and 73: Chogha Bonut.

Amateur Attemps to Redate Gobekli Tepe.

            The beer glasses don't move                  

The weedy man-bunned Hungarian podcaster Károly Póka with the immobile Guiness-glass affectation sat down with Kyle Allen from the ‪@BrothersOfTheSerpent‬ Youtube channel (that he runs with his brother Russell, exploring ancient mysteries, megalithic sites, and the deep history of our civilization). In the episode "Göbekli Tepe: Older Than We’re Told? (Kyle Allen – Ancient Technology Podcast)", Allen pontificates for hours over "what the T-shaped pillars actually tell us, how reliable the current dating of the site really is, who the people behind these megaliths might have been, and why Göbekli Tepe continues to challenge the mainstream timeline of human history". The latter is a red flag, as in the specialist literature in several languages for 26 years Gobekli Tepe and the other Tas Tepeler sites have been writing the mainstream vies of the Natufian/Pre-potter Neolithic A transition and all that relates to that.

In the discussion of Göbekli Tepe, Allen presents a loosely assembled case for pushing the site’s origins further back in time than the dates established by archaeologists, but his argument ultimately rests less on evidence than on a generalized distrust of the field itself. Although the site has been excavated and studied intensively for over two decades following its identification by Klaus Schmidt, and dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, roughly the tenth millennium BCE, Allen suggests that the monumental T-shaped pillars may be older than the materials used to date them. He arrives at this conclusion despite openly acknowledging that he has not properly engaged with the archaeological literature and, at points, struggling to articulate basic concepts drawn from the small portion he has encountered.

His reasoning begins with the observation that the stratigraphy of the site appears complex and, in places, disturbed. From this he infers that the layering cannot be trusted, proposing that natural processes such as slope collapse or seismic activity repeatedly buried and re-exposed the structures, thereby scrambling the sequence of deposits. He extends this line of thought by referring to studies of earthquake damage, noting that some pillars fractured while partially buried, which he takes as evidence that they must predate the layers surrounding them. He also argues that the enclosing stone walls must be later additions because they obscure parts of the carved pillars and, in his view, represent an inferior structural design, leading him to conclude that the megaliths belong to an earlier, separate phase of construction. Further doubt is cast, in his account, on radiocarbon dating itself, which he treats as unreliable due to contamination, mixing of materials, or chemical alteration, suggesting that the dates obtained may reflect later activity rather than the original building phase. Finally, he points to the large accumulation of midden deposits as evidence for long-term, repeated use, including episodes of burial and re-excavation, from which he infers that the initial construction could be significantly older than currently believed.

Taken together, these claims amount to a speculative reinterpretation of the site that substitutes suspicion for method. The difficulties he highlights (disturbed stratigraphy, site formation processes, reuse of structures, and challenges in dating) are not overlooked problems but precisely the kinds of issues that archaeologists working at Göbekli Tepe have spent years documenting, analysing, and incorporating into a coherent chronological framework. The consistency of radiocarbon dates from secure contexts, the typology of stone tools, and the broader regional comparisons all converge on the same timeframe. Allen’s argument does not meaningfully engage with this body of evidence; instead, it relies on partial understanding, selective emphasis, and an underlying assumption that the specialists who have studied the site in detail are fundamentally mistaken. In that sense, his position is not an alternative interpretation grounded in new data, but a rejection of established conclusions without the methodological or evidentiary basis required to support it. Bits of it, he just invents, and persists in shieling his coneptions from question by claiming he "can't remember the details".

Debating the Flat Earth

Jeremy (@ManaByte 6h) a content creator who writes on " pop culture, space, tech, video games" explains about debating conspiracy:

" There is a reason people do not debate Flat Earthers or Moon landing deniers. It is not because the evidence is weak. It is because the conversation is rigged from the start. You can bring measurements, physics, engineering, independent tracking, international verification, and experiments they can do in their own backyard, and none of it matters. The moment the facts show up, they shout fake, edited, CGI, conspiracy, or “that’s just your belief.”

You cannot debate someone who treats every piece of evidence as invalid by default. You cannot debate someone who demands proof and then rejects the proof the second it appears. You cannot debate someone who thinks their personal disbelief outranks measurable reality.

A debate requires both sides to accept evidence. Flat Earth and Moon landing denial collapse the moment evidence enters the room, so the only move left is to deny the room exists.

That is why people do not debate them. Not because the globe is fragile, but because the argument they bring is. You cannot have a real discussion with someone who decided ahead of time that nothing you show them will ever count."

Saharan Archaeology

Source:

That Twisty old Archaeology

     The Timelords of Archaeon, Big Archaeology's governing body in action

Here's a guy who never trained or worked in archaeology, but knows all about that archaeology-stuff

William Smith  @4gottn_History  22h
If the discovery of a SECOND SPHINX is true, it wouldn't change the accepted narrative.  Egyptologists would make sure of that.

Dunning-Kruger drawing on toxic Hancock-hostility, and a reply is no better:

Megalithic Mysteries @Megalithic12000  14h
They would absolutely (sic) try.

That's what institutions do when the evidence contradicts the framework. They reshape the evidence, not the framework.

But here's what's different now.

Ten years ago they could dismiss this as fringe speculation. Today there are SAR scans showing anomalies beneath the mound.

A geologist traced geometric alignments that land directly on it. Egyptian and independent researchers have reached the same conclusion separately.

The data is |(sic) public. The satellite imagery is public. The theological texts have always been public.

Mainstream archaeology has burned through its credibility by gatekeeping for decades. Telling people what they're seeing isn't real. Refusing to investigate sites that don't fit the timeline.

If a second Sphinx is confirmed after years of being told it was nonsense, it won't just rewrite Giza.

It will be the moment a generation of people stops giving the establishment the benefit of the doubt entirely.

.

Wow, Just Wow

This is so totally removed from any reality.... What is the matter with these people?

.